The original US Space Shuttle was also designed to reduce costs - It was hoped that it would be able to run 50 missions / yr (one per week!) and cost $50million/mission (in 2011 dollars). Instead, reality set in, and by the end, it was running only a few missions per year at a cost of around 1/2 Billion dollars each.

The Space Shuttle, while a novel idea, simply wasn't the best design for getting into space - it introducing too many safety compromises. Granted, technology has vastly improved since the 1970's, when the Space Shuttle was designed, but that's mostly in the area of computing - material science hasn't changed nearly as much.

I truly hope India does well with their program, but I do wonder if they're ignoring the mistakes made by the US when we went down this road.

For politicians, "net neutrality" is something to get people fired up about an idea, so that it can be wrapped up with other things. The recent Obama push for net neutrality isn't for the sake of net neutrality as we geeks know and love, but rather some vague notion of a clean internet. The real aim is to move the internet under Title II so that it can be heavily regulated. It would also be subjected to the 16.1% universal service fund tax (as spelled out in the telecom act of 1996).

With the recent events such as the Federal Election Commission wanting to impose new regulations on internet-based political activities, I question the motives of the government heavily regulating the internet, and if it would stay neutral for long. The government has a long, long history of grabbing up any amount of control and power it can reach, and I'm personally fearful that moving the internet under Title II will force on so many regulations that, even if the internet was "net neutral", it would be hampered in plenty other ways. How much more innovation would the telephone have gone through over the past 100 years if it weren't regulated? There's no way of knowing, but I personally don't want to see the internet thrown to that kind of experiment.

"Net Neutrality" is being used as the boondoggle to move the internet under Title II. This is a power grab by the government, and has nothing to do about protecting the consumer. Yes, I believe net neutrality is paramount to protecting the innovation that the internet brings us; but moving it under Title II does nothing to guarantee that.

Uhh- none of this is true. The BMW part, the Hyundai part, or the iPhone part. Since the original iOS release. If you're going to try to make a rant against an iPhone analogy, at least learn enough to speak intelligently.

I manage a team of developers, and I directly hire new developers coming in. One of the things I look for specifically in the interview is "I don't know". Everyone has limits, and everyone needs to acknowledge that they have limits. What's much more important to me is that someone can recognize this and then be able to work around it. The last thing in the world I want is someone telling me they know about something when they really don't, just to appease me.

Has Fabien even been diving before? Fish sleeping in sponges? I've seen that on nearly every night dive I've done. Christmas tree worms spawning are science fiction? Really? I have my own pictures of that: https://www.flickr.com/photos/... - and I'm pretty sure I'm not special here.

Seems to me this guy needs to get out some more. Or at least find something useful to do with his life other than try to capitalize on his name with ridiculous stunts...

I've flown a fair amount in recent months and in more than half the flights, I'm trying to use my iPad during takeoff, and the stewardess will come and bark at me to put my iPad away on takeoff or landing. Naturally, on an airplane, the customer is always wrong. It's not just a matter of telling the consumers, it's a matter of the airlines properly training / informing the crew.

And to add to the rediculousness, when I was flying into St Maarten's airport (the famous one that's right over the beach) last month, the whole plane was reminded that we needed to put away our phones for pictures because "we aren't in FAA airspace, so the rules don't apply here." I guess the EM spectrum is different outside the States...

As long as you look at the world as it is now and don't account for a fast moving tech world, I suppose his viewpoint is correct.

In the same vein, around 2004 or so, smart phones would have appeared "limited" because the cell and wifi infrastructure didn't exist. Yet, in 10 years, the supply has met the demand (well, arguably), and now smart phones are ubiquitous.

I lived in London during that timeframe as well. Having eaten at McDonalds doesn't make you ineligible. Simply being in the UK for a prolonged time during the BSE outbreak will cause you to be turned down for blood donations.

The forms for blood donations don't even mention McDonalds, but they do ask if you were in the UK over certain dates. If so, you're ineligible to give blood, even if you're a vegan.

The question is... if these countries had the budget (err... were willing to put themselves into huge amounts of debt), would they eventually create the same programs as the US? In other words, are the freedoms a result of the will of the people or from more limited resources?

ckhorne writes: The RIAA and MPAA flex their muscle again, this time coercing Verizon, Time Warner, Cablevision, Comcast and AT&T to follow a recommended set of guidelines to "educate" users about what they can and cannot do with their data connection. It appears that the ISPs (read: **AA) will be judge, jury, and executioner, all with no oversight.Link to Original Source